- From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:24:18 -0500
- To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hello,
The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 27 February 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below:
HTML:
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html
TEXT:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
27 Feb 2014
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Adrian_Roselli, David_MacDonald, chaals, janina, PaulC,
Mark_Sadecki, Leonie, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly, Jatinder,
Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Suzanne_Taylor, Plh
Regrets
Chair
Chaals
Scribe
MarkS, chaals
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]longdesc update
2. [5]Canvas update
3. [6]HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April
4. [7]Bug Triage
5. [8]DOM report from PF
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 27 February 2014
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
longdesc update
CM: chaals and mark are working on exit criteria, will be
sharing with the group for consensus soon.
<chaals> MS: PaulC you asked for a timing update…
<chaals> PC: Yes, especially wrt the face to face meeting.
<chaals> … trying to figure our load on Director's calls
<chaals> MS: Might take 2-3 weeks to get WG stuff tied up (most
particularly getting Exit Criteria approved).
<chaals> … so best case we do it before f2f. Or we could let if
go after f2f.
CMN: we will keep Paul informed to avoid any timeline conflicts
<chaals> scribe: chaals
Canvas update
MS: Had a meeting on Monday. Discussed possible timelines,
options.
… agreement that we should get the accessibility problem done
before publishing level 1, so should get Hit regions done.
… 2 possible ways. One is to bring back what we minimally need
for an accessible canvas, other is to bring back all of
hitregions, put things at risk and see how much we get done.
… Group is starting to consider bringing all of hit regions as
the better approach.
…Mozilla has now landed basic hitregions that inform
accessibility API - which is exactly what we wanted.
… Others have asked for hit testing, which would also benefit
accessibility.
RS: Think patched firefox nightly has hit testing working.
JMann: Seems we were trying to get input from google/mozilla on
what we should do here.
… Good news, Ric implemented it in firefox - great effort. Bad
news is that there is a lot of feedback from google that needs
to be addressed. E.g. hitregions doesn't do hit testing.
… We want to implement the full feature not just a slice.
… When we asked Domenic for a timeline he said months not
weeks, and it isn't clear if this is minimal or full
implementation.
… So, what is the cost of doing it testing - can it be done in
L1, without path?
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
PC: I attended monday's meeting. There was talk of bringing all
of Hit Regions back in and marking it at risk.
... I suggested the group try to find out what implementers are
implementing.
<janina> +1 to PC
PC: reports confirm that we need to be patient and figure out
what needs to be put back in to L1
RS: I believe Mozilla has hit testing in their Nightly
... we do need to resolve what we need in the spec
CN: I agree with Paul, we need to decide what goes back into
the spec. Sounds like progress is being made. Hopefully we'll
have a resolution soon.
JMann: I think its important to get Google on board and figure
out what they want to ship
<chaals> scribe: chaals
MS: Based on Google's email I heard something different. They
aren't that concerned by the spec. Domenic seemed to suggest a
couple of weeks' work, but that they have other higher
priorities.
… sounded like they would implement everything.
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
<scribe> scribe: MarkS
RS: there was discussion about where these conversations take
place. Right now, of critical importance is what elements can
be used as fallback content
CM: Our task is to work on HTML stuff in the W3C. It sounds
like there is work to do, some hurdles, but the group is making
progress, and don't have a particular issue they need the full
TF to help resolve at this stage.
JMann: Is dominic referring to everything in the spec? i worry
if they want to do all of it. sounds like feature creep.
especially regarding the path object.
... i think if we put everything in, we will run into timing
issues.
JB: Be great to get this back on a good course.
JS: I think all of us want to do it all. We have to worry about
publishing a spec. The specificity we need from Dominic is what
order we would like these done in.
HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April
CM: HTML WG is meeting at eBay in San Jose April 8-9. Need to
register if you want to attend
<chaals> [10]face to face meeting wiki page
[10] https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda
PC: The wiki page is very extensive. A lot of agenda ideas
there. We should consider using this F2F to work through
Canvas.
... all the TF work is up for discussion at the F2F
... Please feel free to edit the wiki page for the F2F
<paulc> See
[11]https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda#Potential_To
pics for draft agenda topics
[11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda#Potential_Topics
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Fe
b/0064.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html
->
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Fe
b/0064.html Interest in attending F2F
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html
Bug Triage
LW: made very good progress over the past few weeks.
... there are a lot of media related bugs. be great if the
media sub team could get back in action
... Mark sent around an email
<chaals> scribe: chaals
MS: Paul we've been closing bugs. Some are not CR-critical but
would like to consider in 5.1
… Previously you mentioned closing old bugs and opening new
ones for 5.1 as there was an issue of bringing all the history.
… we have been finding the history to often be relevant, so we
wonder if you are OK with reassigning bugs to 5.1 component.
<scribe> scribe: Marks
<scribe> scribe: chaals
PC: You are asking to reopen these bugs that were on an old
component?
MS/LW: Yes
<MarkS> PC: If you reopen it from an old component, how do you
bring it to the attention of the editors.
PC: So how would it get drawn to attention of 5.1 editors? You
propose to change the component, right?
LW: Yep.
PC: How many bugs?
MS: Maybe a dozen.
PC: I'm flexible. Please do this very transparently if it is
what you are doing. Give people an opportunity to see what you
are doing. Don't just quietly change the component - nobody
will notice
<MarkS> PC: Suggest its done transparently, so that everyone
knows what is going on. Changing the component is not very
obvious.
LW: Will it be enough to include a comment in the bug e.g.
"mass-moved to…"
PC: I don't think this is the same as Mike's example
PLH: Don't think we want the HTML 51 editors to work on those
bugs yet.
… would be good to clarify to them what we expect them to do.
LW: Responsibility is clearly on the TF to provide rationale
for changing the status…
PLH: OK. So until we have that info don't reopen the bugs.
PC: Agree.
… I presumed you had the rationale before you were doing that.
I suggest working on them in the TF first.
…at that time changing the coponent makes sense
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
CN: Does that cause trouble for the Bug Triage team? Should
they be moved to the a11y component?
... component is better than a keyword
PC: I'm not convinced that moving bugs through components is
what we want.
CN: We're saying these are not in HTML5 anymore, they are not
ready for HTML5.1 so lets move them to a11y component until the
TF is in agreement what they want to do with the bug.
CS: What about putting them in 5.1 and assigning them to a
member of the TF
CM: Is this something that the bug triage could take directly
to editors of html?
LW: yes
<chaals> ACTION: Leonie to figure out how to sort out this
process [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
PC: there is a component HTML a11y TF.
... last time we talked about this, we said we wouldn't use it.
CM: This is the use case we intended it to be used for.
-> [15]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13434 Bug
13434 - Media element section does not state that tracks are to
be synchronized with video
[15] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
<chaals> scribe: chaals
MS: We thought this is editorial...
DM: Is there any way of misinterpreting this?
MS: That was our concern
JS: There is a use case for non-sychronisation, e.g. when yu
are speed-reading a transcript.
DM: Do we want to require it to be synched?
LW: A transcript would be the non-time-dependent component.
<paulc> To LW: See [16]http://tinyurl.com/jvo4sq8 which
indicates there are 4 bugs in the HTML A11Y TF component. I
expected it to be empty.
[16] http://tinyurl.com/jvo4sq8
JS: We had a proposal for synchronized timescript. Didn't get
consensus
LW: Isn't that captions?
CS: There was a discussion 2-3 years ago about using track for
transcripts, but was knocked back 2-3 years ago.
LW: Question from Bug triage is whether the bug is an editorial
change request
JS: I think it is implicit that there is a use case for
synchronization, but does requiring that break the other use
case of just reading the track?
DM: Is there a mechanism to grab it?
JS: It is a user agent question - and I think part of what
Apple wanted to achieve. THey thought it was a mainstream
requirement for that use case.
… e.g. enable highlighting the link to it
DM: If you have no timing there isn't captioning.
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
CM: UA guidelines state that you should be able to get at that
text, not HTML's job to do that.
... I'm not convinced we have an issue to resolve here.
<janina> +1 to cn
-> [17]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13435 Bug
13435 - Editorial changes to The Video element (3 of 5)
[17] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13435
<chaals> ACTION: LW to raise bug 13434 to the TF by email
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
2]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Raise bug 13434 to the tf by
email [on Léonie Watson - due 2014-03-06].
<chaals> scribe: chaals
MS: If you pause on an unrendered frame, the caption rendered
should be that which covers the frame rendered (last available
frame).
… editor thinks it is already required, we didn't think so. Do
we want to open the bug on 5.1 or accept it as done and close
it?
CMN: If there is a proposal to clarify in the text it would
make sense to propose, but otherwise we are just asking the
HTML editorial group to change their collective mind.
MS: There is a proposal in the bug
<MarkS> scribe: MarkS
<chaals> ACTION: LW to raise bug 13435 to TF in email [recorded
in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
3]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Raise bug 13435 to tf in email
[on Léonie Watson - due 2014-03-06].
DOM report from PF
<chaals> scribe: Marks
CS: ARIA WG has been discussing how to make it easier to handle
API mappings.
... In ARIA we decided to do a core document, then to do
technology specific ones for HTML and SVG
... for HTML seems to be the same one for HTML API map doc
... for SVG, Rick was going to be the editor for that. makes
sense for these to be owned by the group responsible for the
technology
... wondering how HTML feels about this
... and we need an editor
JB: I'm interested in why the original work stalled. Concerned
about potential scope reduction. The work is important. Have
you considered adding other editors and keeping the same scope?
... before this goes to the WG, I think we need more discussion
on this in the TF. I am concerned about scope reduction.
CS: this was proposed by Rich. I can have them speak more to
it.
... all the same mappings would be there. instead of separate
document
PC: Just wanted to remind Janina that PF would discuss this and
report back. Seems like Cynthia is taking this to TF to bring
to WG. Can cynthia write this up and share it with the TF for
review for next week.
JS: Might be too early to discuss this. Michael has asked we
wait until after 1.0 is out. There are a few more details we
need to iron out first.
... the write-up should get consensus in PF and in WAI CG
before we bring this through the TF and the WG.
CS: I was using this as an opportunity to get some feedback for
the write-up.
<David_> take it up next week?
CS: I want to talk about those next steps and recruit staff.
<chaals> [adjourned]
<chaals> [DOM report will be on next week's agenda, and I hope
Janina will provide an email today of what she wanted to say]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Leonie to figure out how to sort out this process
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
[NEW] ACTION: LW to raise bug 13434 to the TF by email
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
2]
[NEW] ACTION: LW to raise bug 13435 to TF in email [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
3]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([24]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-02-27 17:22:45 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:24:18 UTC